How to read responses from the alleged “Servicer”

The human mind fills in voids wherever they occur. The mind fills it in with data that normally occurs between one data point and another. So when we read a response from “the servicer” our minds automatically fill in the gaps resulting in our perception that a valid document or response is what we are holding when in fact it is a tasteless equivalent of swiss cheese.

Here is an example of why it pays to file a complaint with the State AG office and the CFPB even though the teeth seem to be dropping out of both. They are still required to respond and if they don’t it automatically must be escalated. So they always respond even if it is with lies and statements and documents that are filled with fatal gaps.

Such responses are often more revealing than responses (usually objections) to discovery. They can’t object to a complaint.

GET FREE HELP: Just click here and submit  the confidential, free, no obligation, private REGISTRATION FORM.
Let us help you plan for trial and draft your foreclosure defense strategy, discovery requests and defense narrative: 202-838-6345. Ask for a Consult or check us out on www.lendinglies.com. Order a PDR BASIC to have us review and comment on your notice of TILA Rescission or similar document.
I provide advice and consultation to many people and lawyers so they can spot the key required elements of a scam — in and out of court. If you have a deal you want skimmed for red flags order the Consult and fill out the REGISTRATION FORM.
PLEASE FILL OUT AND SUBMIT OUR FREE REGISTRATION FORM 
Get a Consult and TERA (Title & Encumbrances Analysis and & Report) 202-838-6345 or 954-451-1230. The TERA replaces and greatly enhances the former COTA (Chain of Title Analysis, including a one page summary of Title History and Gaps).
THIS ARTICLE IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION UPON WHICH YOU CAN RELY IN ANY INDIVIDUAL CASE. HIRE A LAWYER.
========================
So here is a case in which the homeowner followed by advice and did send a complaint to the AG office. Bayview responds on behalf of an unknown creditor, a previous servicer (Quality Loan Service) whose default notice and affidavit of service are obviously fabrications using imaging technology. They didn’t notify the borrower of impending foreclosure they simply made up the documents after they initiated foreclosure to justify having done it. In most cases, borrowers don’t even challenge this. But here the borrower is challenging and in so doing she seeks to set the clock back to zero.
*
It says the letter is in response to your letter. And it recites the specific requests. It identifies Bayview as a debt collector which means, by definition, that it is not a creditor. This is significant because contrary to the requirement of statute the beneficiary is never identified although the space where a beneficiary should be named is filled in with Bayview’s name. A follow up complaint with the Division of Financial Services is warranted.
*
Ryan Fortenbury no doubt has nothing to do with actual compliance but rather is in charge of the illusion of compliance. He might be a witness who could reveal, reluctantly, that the documents were fabricated or at least that he has no idea how the documents were produced. His signature is bizarre leading me to believe that either it is a stamp or that it is a special signature used for this purpose only that he can later disclaim.
*
There is a copy of a notice of default but there is no statement by anyone that says that the copy provided is a copy of an actual notice that was actually sent. What they are setting up here is a presumption arising from the business records exception to the hearsay rule. In essence what they are going to say is that QLS had this is their records, that those records were turned over to Bayview, that QLS created and maintained the records at or around the time of each event, and that Bayview now claims it to be part of their business records. There is no such statement from QLS, Bayview or anyone else. But this is how they skate by pro se homeowners and foreclosure defense lawyers.
*
Normal business record practices would have a copy that includes the mailing information. Even letters show the mailing information and business records often include copies of the envelope. No presumption of mailing can occur without someone saying that the notice was delivered by the U.S. Postal Service. At this point if they were to make that assertion I would advise contacting the U.S. Postal Inspector and reporting Bayview as having used the name of the USPS as part of a fraudulent scheme.
*
The mailing of the response constitutes the use of the USPS for a fraudulent scheme in my opinion. Hence the fake documents included were also  part of a fraudulent scheme that could be mail fraud. Note that at the end  it says “First Class and Cert. No 71039628594221471421” but it doesn’t say USPS. If you are certain you didn’t receive this then a subpoena or other demand for USPS records regarding the numbers stated on the notice should be made. When they come up empty you have a lock on the facts.
*
Note that at the end of their package they have corroborated what I say herein. They have attached copy of the mailing label of their response. That is normal practice. If they really had sent the notices they would have retained a copy of the mailing label, especially if it was USPS certified mail.
*
On the Foreclosure Loss Mitigation Form the beneficiary is listed as Bayview which is a servicer not a lender or investor. They are reported to have acquired some loans as a debt collector for pennies on the dollar but they are not considered to be an actual owner of the debt (i.e. a creditor) unless they paid for the debt and not just the paper to enforce the liability created by the paper’s existence.
*
Whether Bayview actually prepared any of this documentation is to be determined at a later time. But the documentation shows Bayview is not the beneficiary but the servicer who is managing the loan. Hence the reference to Bayview as beneficiary leaves out disclosure of the beneficiary by filling in the name of a party who is not a beneficiary.
*
The “posting” copy that I have is unsigned and uncorroborated. I believe that both the notice of default and the posting were recently fabricated, copied a few times and then included with their response.
*
Page 2 of the letter says that the loan is due but does not state who the money is owed to or otherwise due. This is intentional. It is designed to conceal the real players who wish to avoid liability for servicing violations and other claims by the borrower.
*
The letter says that Bayview “would like to afford [borrower] every opportunity to be reviewed for all possible alternatives to foreclosure.” This is a standard sentence that says nothing but reveals a lot. Normally, a servicer or any agent would say that they are authorized by the creditor (and they would name the creditor somewhere in the letter) to offer possible alternatives to foreclosure subject to approval by the creditor (or creditor’s agents). Bayview seems to be implying that but they are not saying it. And they don’t mean what they are implying. They have no such authorization and they should be asked about that. How can they have authorization to even say that if they won’t reveal the identity of the creditor?
*
The affidavit of mailing is just a robosigned document. It is executed supposedly by Wai Tang, it is not sworn and it is not notarized. So as far as I know it isn’t an affidavit. This is a fabricated copy of an image created by using on-screen technology in my opinion. The signature is a good example of the illegible signatures used in forgeries and robosigning. I doubt if Wai Tang signed it. AND please notice that it is not signed by Quality Loan Service but supposedly by ID Solutions as agent for Quality Loan Service. This is a device to further distance QLS, Bayview and whoever else was involved from the fabrication of the notice of default and service thereof.
*
I can only find one reference to ID Solutions. It appears to have the skillset and means to create documents on screen that never existed in real life. Hence the “business Records” aspect fo the document is undermined because it wasn’t;t created or maintained by QLS or Bayview but they will say they received a copy of it and as such kept it as a business record. You want to show they  never received such a copy from ID SOLUTIONS or if they did it was at their direction — and hence you want correspondence between QLS and ID Solutions.
ID Solutions, Inc. develops, integrates, and delivers digital identification solutions for criminal, civilian, customer, and employee identification. It offers IDS Core SDK, which are software development kits that provide third party support; IDSearch, an automated fingerprint identification system that allows integration into small and medium-scale system as a biometric back-end via its programmatic interfaces; IDS Clean File System, which is intended for performing cross-comparison of large fingerprint databases; and Wireless Handheld Open identification System that is a mobile biometrics integration platform. The company also provides various solutions, such as national identification, v…
*
The notice of default claims that the owner of the note is Fannie Mae. It does not identify Fannie as a creditor or the owner of the debt. It is true that a presumption arises from “ownership” off the note, but that is only based upon payment and delivery of the note, which I can assure you never happened.
*
Generally references to Fannie are either false or misleading. They are false if Fannie had nothing to do with the origination or acquisition of the loan. If Fannie is claimed to have acquired the note it is usually as Master Trustee for a hidden REMIC Trust name that conceals the investment bank that is using the hidden trust name as a fictitious name (DBA).
*
Typically Fannie pays for the loans using the certificates issued by the investment bank as “REMIC Trust” which are then sold by the investment bank to investors using a conventional Bank name as “Trustee” of the nonexistent trust. The actual owner of the debt was the investment bank but all risk of loss has been sold, effectively dwelling  the debt, to (a) investors who purchased the certificates or (b) investors who are betting on the certificates.
*
There is no statement as to why or how or under what set vicing agreement, document or appointment Bayview is managing or servicing the loan.
*
The reinstatement amount is at best suspect and is probably unsupportable by any standard. The implication  of “reinstatement” is that if Kerrigan pays this amount the money will go to someone who paid value for the loan and therefore the debt would be correspondingly reduced. This is almost certainly not the case here. And there is nothing in any document says that it will.
*
In the absence of fulfilling the criteria of having the creditor declare the default the notice of acceleration and the notice of default are void in addition to the lack of evidence that they were ever served.
*
The signature of Christy Young on the Note of Default is highly suspect. I am not a forensic document examiner but I have seen many documents on which different forensic document examiners have given a score of 9 which means fake. The designation as “assistant secretary” is a giveaway for a robosigned document. The positioning of the signature indicates at least a strong possibility of forgery or an imaged signature in which the person whose signature appears knows nothing of the document or the signature. Since such persons typically are compensated for use of their signature it is not technically an forgery but it is definitely a robosignature if that happened. If so that is evidence of fraud and violations of FRCA, FDCPA, RESPA, TILA etc.
*
You should contest the statement on the Foreclosure Loss Mitigation Form that says that The beneficiary or beneficiary’s agent has contacted the borrower as required under RCW 61.24.031. Unless they can identify the creditor they cannot identify the beneficiary. without identifying the beneficiary, they can’t claim agency. In the absence of all that, they can say that it happened but they haven’t actually said it substantively. It is a facially valid statement which in the context of the statement is meaningless and therefore out of compliance.
*
There is no statement as to how, why and between whom an agreement was reached to transfer servicing from QLS to Bayview. This is because no such agreement exists. They were both acting under the instructions of the investment bank who was moving the named players around to confuse the borrower and anyone representing the borrower.

3 Responses

  1. OHH Ian – absolutely!! And, would you believe? I know about Balboa!!!! Balboa – who I had never heard of – showed up on servicing records, produced a couple of years ago, for a loan that was supposed to have been paid off more than ten years ago!! But loan was not paid off !!! (and I have cancelled check that it was!!!). And, there is Balboa charging insurance fee, and there are other fees, years after the loan was supposed to have been paid off. No forced place insurance was justified AT ALL. Pay a fortune for OUR homeowners insurance. VERY HIGH – the best!!! . How the heck did Balboa get there without even notice? And, after loan was supposed to paid off??? But, all done for reason — get you out of where you were and into “their” clutches. Whoever “they” may be.

    What kind of “settlements” did the government orchestrate? It has harmed the public beyond expression. And, now – statute of limitations. Well planned fraud. .

    Thanks Ian.

  2. ANON- additionally, under Glass Steagall, banks were prohibited from selling insurance, and that prohibition was removed under Gramm Leach. This enabled the banks to foist “force placed insurance “on millions of homeowners, and their ability to do so was noted in the mortgage docs, in preparation of further fleecing their customers.
    Bank of America got lightly fined for such illegalities via their Balboa Insurance Co.
    And if the insurance was based on either a nonexistent appraisal or a bloated appraisal, The FPI never went down when the economy tanked and millions of homes lost 50-60% of their value.

  3. Glass Steagall Act separated investment banking from commercial banking. In 1999, the ACT was discarded by Gramm- Leach Bliley Act. Before Gramm, so called investment banks acted as servicers for the GSE. There were no “debt collector” servicers.

    Markets were further deregulated by the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. In other words – the fraud was born.

    Is it not coincidental that the private label trusts started shortly after 2000, and that the banks roles changed from GSE servicer to investment bank -in control of the bogus “trusts” whose top tranches were sold to the GSEs? And, the mortgage market share shifted from full GSE share to the private investment banks. Was this not all planned out? Bank lobbyists have much more power than the people who elect their representatives. What is done behind those closed doors is an atrocity.

    Fannie/Freddie “REMICs” contained those investment bank private trusts tranche securities. If a “debt collector” servicer is collecting – Freddie Fannie is NOT the beneficiary. Beneficiary, if any, is concealed by the deregulation acts.

    Pay attention Trump – don’t do what your predecessors did. It will get worse – if that is possible.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: